Legislator’s electoral plan catches RNC’s ear |

Legislator’s electoral plan catches RNC’s ear

The Associated Press
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi talks with a Tribune Review reporter in his office in Harrisburg on Wednesday, May 9, 2012. Brian F. Henry | Tribune-Review
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi talks with a Tribune Review reporter in his office in Harrisburg on Wednesday, May 9, 2012. Brian F. Henry | Tribune-Review

HARRISBURG — The national GOP is keeping an eye on state Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi’s effort to change the way Pennsylvania counts its votes in presidential elections.

Pileggi caused a stir last fall when he proposed abandoning the method 48 states use to award their Electoral College votes: The statewide election winner gets all the electoral votes.

Because Democratic President Obama beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania — by 5 percent of the 5.7 million ballots cast in the Nov. 6 election — the state’s 20 electoral votes were folded into Obama’s re-election total.

Pileggi argues that the winner-take-all system is inherently unfair because the losing party — that’s been the GOP in presidential elections going back to 1992 in Pennsylvania — gets no credit in the electoral count.

Nationally, the Republican Party is in a strong position to change the laws and chip away at the Democrats’ advantage in major battlegrounds such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Democrats carried all three states in the past six presidential elections but they are run by Republican governors and legislatures.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee called such proposals “state matters.”

“We’re aware that a few states are re-examining how their electoral votes are allocated and we’ll continue to monitor” the situation, said the spokesman, Ryan Mahoney.

Pete Lund, Michigan’s House Republican whip, said next year is an opportune time to renew the push for his bill to award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and allocate the rest based on results in each congressional district — the method used by Nebraska and Maine.

The 2016 election “is still a few years away, and no one knows who the candidates are going to be,” said Lund, whose original bill went nowhere last year.

Pileggi advanced a similar proposal in Pennsylvania last fall, but it split state GOP leaders and faded into oblivion well before the state’s April presidential primary.

Still, as recently as this week’s meeting of Pennsylvania’s electors, more than one Democrat singled it out for criticism as an unfair, partisan ploy that would have given Romney as many as 13 of the 20 votes, even though Obama won the popular vote.

“If you’re going to change it across the country all at one time … that’s one thing,” said Democratic state Treasurer Rob McCord, one of the 20 electors. “If you’re going to take a major swing state and say we’re going to take a minority of the votes and get a majority of the Electoral College votes, that seems wrong with an uppercase ‘W.’ ”

Pileggi’s latest proposal, which he plans to introduce as legislation next year, is similar to his original plan, but is not tied to the ever-shifting congressional districts that reflect political pressures within the state. It would award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and divide the rest between the candidates in proportion to their share of the statewide vote.

Had that system been in place this year, Obama would have garnered 12 electoral votes and Romney would have received eight, according to Pileggi’s office.

“This was a way to ensure that whoever wins statewide will get a majority of the electoral votes,” said Erik Arneson, spokesman for the Delaware County lawmaker.

Arneson said his boss has not discussed the proposal with national party leaders.

“He’s focused on Pennsylvania,” he said. “If other people want to pursue it, we think it makes sense nationally.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.